Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 08:57 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 02 July 2013 09:46
> > To: Paul Durrant
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device
> > 
> > >>> On 02.07.13 at 10:39, Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > --- a/include/hw/pci/pci_ids.h
> > > +++ b/include/hw/pci/pci_ids.h
> > > @@ -151,4 +151,7 @@
> > >  #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_TEWS               0x1498
> > >  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_TEWS_TPCI200       0x30C8
> > >
> > > +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_CITRIX             0x5853
> > 
> > Is that really the right way to do things, considering that the same
> > value is elsewhere used for PCI_VENDOR_ID_XEN?
> > 
> > Jan
> > 
> > > +#define PCI_DEVICE_ID_CITRIX_PV_BUS      0x0002
> > > +
> > >  #endif
> > 
> 
> I opted to do this for clarity. The fact that the Xen platform device
> uses Citrix's vendor ID is historical;

AFAIR this was XenSource's vendor ID (it is "XS" in ASCII) which was
donated to the Xen community. I'll clarify this internally though.

>  I wanted to be clear that this device was distinct.

I think giving two names to the same ID serves only to obfuscate.

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel